It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wacky Physics: New Uncertainty About the Uncertainty Principle

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:11 AM
link   


"You have this basic uncertainty, and then by measuring you add an additional uncertainty," Sulyok said. "But with an apparatus performing two successive measurements, you can identify the different contributions." Using their data, the physicists were able to calculate just how the different types of uncertainty add together and influence each other. Their new formula doesn't change the conclusion of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but it does tweak the reasoning behind it.
- Link

What do you think about this? Is it just some greater law that we are unaware of, or is it truly randomness? Is this an indicator of our free-will or just an illusion divorcing us from the reality of determinism? What do you conclude?

Science is getting really shaky nowadays, it's becoming more and more speculative, more and more about theories based on these "strange" findings rather than actual knowledge. I wish I knew all of the answers about our universe.




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:16 AM
link   
What do I think? well, I can't be certain...


Sorry, just had to be an idiot



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:43 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

I'm afraid to follow the link for fear of what I might find. I'm not ready for philosophical physics this early.

Is he saying that the basic uncertainty, which exists before measuring, is itself changeless? A fixed uncertainty? If it's not then wouldn't the basic uncertainty change between the succesive measurements? And wouldn't that make determing the "measurement uncertainty" impossible?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by arpgme
 

I'm afraid to follow the link for fear of what I might find. I'm not ready for philosophical physics this early.

Is he saying that the basic uncertainty, which exists before measuring, is itself changeless? A fixed uncertainty? If it's not then wouldn't the basic uncertainty change between the succesive measurements? And wouldn't that make determing the "measurement uncertainty" impossible?



The only certainty in this holographic universe is your perspective - it is in a constant state of flux beyond your limited perception, which is ultimately decoded 1s and 0s (waves & particles of potential in raw form) - it's chaos - there is no reason to fear it, but use its power.

Let's say you have a thought, which you draw from the Abyss, you measure it - you are certain of its measurement for the moment, until you go and measure it again, or ask another person to measure your thought - does it always measure the same? Or are there slightly shorter, and longer version of the same?




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

The uncertainty principle was a big problem for the scientific consultants hired to try to make some of the futuristic technology mentioned in "Star Trek The Next Generation" at least sound somewhat plausible.

So how did they solve that problem? The added a piece of technology called the "Heisenberg Compensator" to the transporters, so that the uncertainty could be taken out of the transporter technology.

Unfortunately, with our limited present knowledge,"Heisenberg Compensator" is still very much in the realm of science fiction.

All this experiment in the OP has done is defined the uncertainty a little better, but it hasn't reduced it, that I can tell. And I'm not sure why they call it "Wacky"? The "Heisenberg Compensator" is probably a little wacky, but the experiment mentioned above doesn't seem to be.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:24 AM
link   
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle isn't really a theory on the nature of quantum mechanics as much as it is a statement on the limitations of our technology. In short, it is an excuse for not knowing everything about a quantum particle, because the only way we know of to measure the location of a particle changes its momentum and vice versa.

Key phrase there being "that we know of".

IMHO, too much emphasis has been placed on these types of things. Too much energy is spent on explaining why we cannot do a thing instead of trying to devise a way to actually do the thing. It's a marriage of physics and philosophy, two diametrically opposed viewpoints that cannot be combined without damaging both. Shrodinger's cat falls into the same category, as does my opinion stated here.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme
What do you think about this?



I dont even know why they bothered doing the experiment at all.
Its been long known that the simple analogy told by Heisenberg (eg. a photon giving a 'kick' to the particle during measurement) has nothing whasoever to do with the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle.

Really it seems to me that these experimenters went to a lot of trouble to show, yet again, that the current line of thinking on the uncertainty principle is correct, and the cheap-and-nasty textbook analogy isnt.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


I read it many times and I'm still confused.


reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher
 


Well first we'll have to be certain that it's actually holographic...

reply to post by TheRedneck
 


I wish we had better technology to measure this. Imagine if science would have started off studyinh the micro-world (quantum physics) instead of the macro-world (classic physics) first. It's a mystery how much we would have known today.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle isn't really a theory on the nature of quantum mechanics as much as it is a statement on the limitations of our technology. In short, it is an excuse for not knowing everything about a quantum particle, because the only way we know of to measure the location of a particle changes its momentum and vice versa.



Thats 100 percent wrong, and you're taking the argument of Einstein in the Bohr-Einstein debates.

Einstein lost.

Really, this issue was resolved nearly 100 years ago now, so its a shame people still dont understand.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

Dear arpgme,

My apologies for the confusion. It came about because I am, as usual, completely confused and my understanding is looking for a hand out of this mess. Please let me try another shot at it.

There is a "basic uncertainty", just sitting there being uncertain. Then we measure it and it becomes more uncertain (or differently uncertain). If we take two measurements, one right after the other, we can assume that any difference in the results was caused by the measurements.

I can understand that, but doesn't it only work if the basic uncertainity stays unchanged? If measuring the first time introduces uncertainty, and the second measurement adds more, how can we find out anything if the "basic uncertainty", that was there before we measured, is changing as well?

Feel free to write this off as incredibly naive. I admit I know nothing in this field, but help would be appreciated.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 11:00 AM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 


I am not certain
but in my humble opinion it all has to do with what we can observe and how we observe it....with other words...who or what is doing the observing...

It is difficult to observe something you do not know is there.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 

They're on hte edge of knowledge. They'll be wrong a lot.

But they're closer to being right than the average joe.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by arpgme





"You have this basic uncertainty, and then by measuring you add an additional uncertainty," Sulyok said. "But with an apparatus performing two successive measurements, you can identify the different contributions." Using their data, the physicists were able to calculate just how the different types of uncertainty add together and influence each other. Their new formula doesn't change the conclusion of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, but it does tweak the reasoning behind it.
- Link

What do you think about this? Is it just some greater law that we are unaware of, or is it truly randomness? Is this an indicator of our free-will or just an illusion divorcing us from the reality of determinism? What do you conclude?

Science is getting really shaky nowadays, it's becoming more and more speculative, more and more about theories based on these "strange" findings rather than actual knowledge. I wish I knew all of the answers about our universe.


There is one overriding reason for this. The measurements and implications from the data continually point toward an intelligence behind the engineering of the universe. The increasingly speculative nature of science is the attempt to force the equation to recognize an outcome that does not match the conclusion of God. Taking G out of the equation blinds science to seeing that light is not a duality. It's a trinity.

Light is particle, wave and consciousness. Consciousness is spirit. This is what the Bible calls blasphemy against the Holy Spirit of God. Disbelief in consciousness preexisting matter is this very blasphemy. Can I prove consciousness preexists matter? No more than science proves that is does not. I can suggest it as the better answer and so can science if it would just listen to the evidence.

Wave function collapse happens when a choice is made to change the states of matter by selecting an action from the indeterminate probability space of infinity. To say it simply, we take the indeterminate nature of the future outcome and change it's state to determined by a choice. Only consciousness can collapse the wave. Uncertainty is only uncertain until consciousness acts on the states of matter. Matter cannot create consciousness. No more than a thing can rise above its source. Can a river rise above the lake in quantity?

Science says we originate from the sun and moon. Our source of life comes from light energy and wave. Science speaks of this duality as the dual nature of light quanta. What it misses is a simple fact. We are greater than the sun and moon. Nothing flows back to create the source. All things flow from a source and the thing that flows is never greater than the source.

These two are just simple logic from the theory we can somewhat verify. How about the theory we know well as near fact. Consider entropy in information theory. Don't confuse this with entropy in energy. Entropy in information theory demonstrates that information bits degrade in nature. We can see this happen as bits of information disassemble. Not so with life. DNA defies entropy in information by replicating indefinitely. The body will degrade, but the DNA only degrades due to its programming and environment. The copy in the child is perfect again.

Can I demonstrate this another way? Again, simple logic. An acorn is also a 75 foot oak tree. The essence of the form that is generated is merely a pattern inside the information of the seed. This is a technology that defies the source it comes from. The Tree is greater than the seed. The seed is greater than the soil. Again, where is the source? Information is greater than both. Where is the source of the information? Greater than the information itself. What is the source of the information? Consciousness that preexists matter.

The simplest answer is the correct answer. Verify it by nature and what the data tells you. After you do this, then verify the purpose and intent by the story it tells.

Two become one and then replicate after developing in a womb. The womb shields the new life form what comes next, as being under a veil. When a man and a wife come together in natural union, it is due to love. When sperm and egg come together, the love creates a new life in the womb. When the new life emerges from the womb, the new person finds a love. Is this the end. No? The earth is the new womb. When our soul and the spirit of God find each other in love, the two become one and we transcend the womb. Where is the next birth emerge? Heaven. Where is heaven? Outside the womb. Each new emergence of life knows more than the one before by a development of consciousness by experience.

Do we doubt there is something beyond this Earth? We would be fools to doubt. Look up!


edit on 27-2-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   
There's nothing new about this, this is something every undergrad in physics for the past 90 years should be aware of. I don't know why this experiment was even done? Perhaps they did something more detailed than what's mentioned in the article, because as described what they did might be a fun project, but is not even worth publishing.

To the point of the article, yes, there are two different uncertainties: intrinsic and measurement. You have errors in measuring something that is already fuzzy. These errors behave differently.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 

i think it's a bit more than that.

i read about an experiment where two particles were bounced off each other directly going the same speed. they wanted to measure the position of one, and the momentum of the other, then they could know both for each particle. what they found was that instantly after measuring the position of one particle, the momentum of the other changed so that they couldn't break the uncertainty principle.

in essence, they discovered a kind of quantum entanglement. at the quantum level, there is no such thing as a particle, just waves really, so the exact location of something is in flux, or "uncertain".



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 


The Heisenberg Uncertainty principle isn't really a theory on the nature of quantum mechanics as much as it is a statement on the limitations of our technology.

Completely untrue. In fact, the OP-linked experiment actually discriminates between observational uncertainty and fundamental uncertainty.

*


reply to post by alfa1
 


I dont even know why they bothered doing the experiment at all. Its been long known that the simple analogy told by Heisenberg (eg. a photon giving a 'kick' to the particle during measurement) has nothing whasoever to do with the fundamental nature of the uncertainty principle.

Well, as you see from the above, the news hasn't reached The Redneck's neck of the woods yet. Maybe stating the obvious a few times over isn't such a bad idea after all...



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Light is particle, wave and consciousness. Consciousness is spirit.


But we know that photons/light is particle and wave, but how do we know it is consciousness?


Originally posted by EnochWasRight
We are greater than the sun and moon


So, we came from the sun and moon, and the sun and moon came from the source when it was all together as once huge energy, I guess...



Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Entropy in information theory demonstrates...


Sorry, I don't know anything about that but from what you described it makes sense. If information keeps breaking down over time then it make sense that at one time that information was all perfect (intelligence at the start ) and THEN started to break down over time, logically


Originally posted by EnochWasRight
When sperm and egg come together, the love creates a new life in the womb.


I don't think it's love that does anything, people can get pregnant through rape and just casual sex too.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 




Originally posted by EnochWasRight
Light is particle, wave and consciousness. Consciousness is spirit.

But we know that photons/light is particle and wave, but how do we know it is consciousness?


One is the resource and the other is the information that changes the states of the resource. We can easily know because we are smart and logical. Science has demonstrated that consciousness is not an independent part of matter, but each depends on the other. Sometimes, it's just that simple, yet hard to see at first.



posted on Feb, 28 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by arpgme
 





So, we came from the sun and moon, and the sun and moon came from the source when it was all together as once huge energy, I guess...


The best guess anyone has is a pretty good estimation of what the early universe would have looked like. High State of order and low entropy, like a hot cup of well mixed coffee. Entropy increases and order collapses from a wash of high light energy to the elements we have today. Science says this, yet information and wave (force) would have no problem moving the early universe along more quickly when the wave and force are variable. They are fixed at this point, but nothing says that the original force was set to anything other than the hand of God molding our starting point like clay.

What about the 6 days of creation and a day of rest. We know from the Bible that man showed up on the 6th day. Draw a golden rectangle, then another within. Keep this up until you have 7, one in the other. Now draw a golden spiral at a ratio of 1:1.618. You are looking at time by perspective. 15 billion years is 6 days in ratio to the first. The longest day is the first. The shortest is the seventh. If you are riding the wave of time, it all looks the same by perspective. That's how a toroidal system works. Look down a spiral of stairs from the top town. What do you see? What do you see as you make your way down? Look from the bottom up. Now it's a mirror of where you just were.

Could the Sims characters know how ones and zeros work? Could they determine the output necessary to derive energy from coal? Could they know there is a plug attached to the machine? What concept of the machine could they possess unless they construct their own in like kind? Below, in my signature, you can follow the link to the physics of God and see more on this from my view.



edit on 28-2-2012 by EnochWasRight because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 29 2012 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by EnochWasRight
 


How did they prove that consciousness is not in the brain but dependent on each other? And what do you mean "dependent on each other" what happens if a person still has this consciousness outside of the body but they don't have a brain, are you saying this is "imbalance"?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join